[FirstClassSkeptic]

Another iconic item is the 'melting eyes'. Since an eyeball isn't frozen, how could it melt? You know if it got hot enough, it would burn; not melt. Eyes aren't made out of thermoplastic, or wax, or such. They are flesh.

It might be an inept BIblical allusion. There is a verse, "And this shall be the plague that shall strick those that come against Jerusalem: Their eyes shall consume away in their sockets, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth." Something like that. I am quoting from memory. Some translations may actually say 'melt'. I don't know.

The melting eyes might come from John Hersey in this New Yorker article, when he describes the soldiers as having their eyes melted.

[rerevisionist]

ANOTHER INCONSISTENCY: NO MUSHROOM CLOUD - IT WAS A STRINGER, SAID TIBBETS TO TERKEL

I don't know if you've seen this (Google 'Hiroshima mushroom stringer') - 2002 (alleged) interview transcription; there are several copies online, I've selected a newspaper site here, where the full interview is posted:--
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/au ... lear.japan

ST: Did you see that mushroom cloud?

PT: You see all kinds of mushroom clouds, but they were made with different types of bombs. The Hiroshima bomb did not make a mushroom. It was what I call a stringer. It just came up. It was black as hell, and it had light and colours and white in it and grey colour in it and the top was like a folded-up Christmas tree.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

IN that interview of the Enola Gay, on youtube, I am fairly certain that Tibbets says there was a mush room cloud. I'd have to rewatch it to make sure.

[EyesWideOpen]

I have a chemical/technical question... Many of these mushroom clouds look like giant fire balls. They are literally red and orange in color.

QUESTION: Where does all that FIRE come from?

From what I understand the claim is... Atomic Bombs cause RADIATION HEAT from invisible X-rays or gamma-rays or whatever-rays and not THERMAL HEAT from fire. My point is that there is nothing in an Atomic Bomb to cause giant "FIRE" BALLS in mid-air, over water or over desert. They are supposed to release RADIATION HEAT not THERMAL HEAT.

Am I off track on this?

[rerevisionist]

@eyeswideopen - are you offtrack? No, you're spot on. Quite a few commentators have said the same thing - an airblast, particularly if very high, has no fuel to burn and not much dust either. It's why it seems likely that something like napalm was used rather than just explosives.

Come to think of it - I don't think anyone's mentioned this explicitly - if you want to fake a 'nuke', the requirements in daylight are different from nighttime. At night you want a flash and a bang - a cloud won't be very visible. But during the day a huge cloud looks impressive; a flash much brighter than the sun was impossible then, and I'd guess still is now. So in daytime I'd expect they included something like napalm. However, napalm was new - maybe they used a big heap of ammonium nitrate and oil?

However, there's another variation - there were supposed to be clouds formed in the same region as an H bomb explosion (at 4000 degrees C???) though this supposed feature seems to have been abandoned - see my 2-minute Youtube 'British 1957 'H Bomb' Film Proofs of Fakery'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN8M6vO_kC

There's another daytime issue - explosions under or near water. There are two variations I've seen - one, the upward jet of water with some sort of clouds above; two, the bikini-type big hemisphere of water vapour. While it's hard to be sure, these may be faked on film - note the way the clouds in such videos remain unchanged. This 2 1/2-min video is by 'moonshow' who appears to be Spanish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEeuzEi9 ... re=related
The featureless white areas are easier to fake than detail.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

This 2 1/2-min video is by 'moonshow' who appears to be Spanish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEeuzEi9 ... re=related
The featureless white areas are easier to fake than detail.

Maybe moonshow is A.F.M.?

[rerevisionist]

Yes, could well be. He seems to have got into nuclear scepticism via the moonlanding, as did our very own mooninquirer.

[EyesWideOpen]

This 2 1/2-min video is by 'moonshow' who appears to be Spanish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEeuzEi9 ... re=related
The featureless white areas are easier to fake than detail.

Maybe moonshow is A.F.M.?

Personally, I dont think you can look at a cloud since there is absolutely no way to tell relative distance between things. Impossible.

I have not gone down to the University to talk to anyone but the smoke and fire pretty much convinces me from a chemical standpoint. Take a look at the video provided and you will notice:

1. Takes place in Water
2. Huge amount of BLACK SMOKE

From what I understand, SMOKE is carbon so where does the CARBON come from? I think the "Smoking Gun" may well be the smoke (or fire in other cases).

Items REQUIRED for Fire:

1. Oxygen - Air
2. Heat - Fission (x-rays)
3. Fuel - ? (other than the minor high-explosives in an implosion type bomb)

[FirstClassSkeptic]

From what I understand, SMOKE is carbon so where does the CARBON come from? I think the "Smoking Gun" may well be the smoke (or fire in other cases).

There's a thread on here someplace called: The Color of Nukes, with pictures comparing the 'nukes' to burning napalm.

Mod added: yes, here it is, renamed (right-click to open in a new window) - The Color of Nuke Explosions

[EyesWideOpen]

Color of the Sun:

"In popular culture, the Sun is yellow. But did you know that the color of the Sun is actually white? It’s only when light from the Sun passes through the Earth’s atmosphere that it changes in color, from white, to the yellow we see here on Earth.

All stars have a color. From red dwarfs and red giants, to white and yellow stars to blue giants and supergiants. The color of a star comes from its temperature. As photons escape the interior of a star out into space, they have different amounts of energy. A star can be emitting infrared, red, blue and ultraviolet light all at the same time. They’re even emitting X-rays and gamma rays."

Source: http://www.universetoday.com/18689/color-of-the-sun/


Comments on Mars, Hubble Telescope and MER:

"The cameras on Hubble and MER do not take color pictures, however. Color images from both spacecraft are assembled from separate black & white images taken through color filters. For one image, the spacecraft have to take three pictures, usually through a red, a green, and a blue filter and then each of those photos gets downlinked to Earth. They are then combined with software into a color image."

Bell concluded, “What we're doing on Mars is really just an estimate, it’s our best guess using our knowledge of the cameras with the calibration target. But whether it is absolutely 100% true, I think it’s going to take people going there to find that out.”

Source: http://www.universetoday.com/11863/true ... otography/

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Bell concluded, “What we're doing on Mars is really just an estimate, it’s our best guess using our knowledge of the cameras with the calibration target. But whether it is absolutely 100% true, I think it’s going to take people going there to find that out.”

Source: http://www.universetoday.com/11863/true ... otography/

NASA is taking pictures in some desert on earth, and turning up the red drive. There's several discussions on the web about the redness of the pictures. If you put the pictures in a video editor, and turn down the red, the sky will turn blue, or white. I tried this with a few. It convinced me that NASA's martian rover isn't on mars; it's down here on earth someplace in a desert.

[rerevisionist]

'Far Out' Probable Effects of Real Nuclear Explosions
Musing over this... there's a missing, or underrated, aspect, which is effects barely met with in normal life, but which could be expected, more so of course with H-bombs. One of the problems with 'nuclear' explosions as in the media is that they are too ordinary.

[1] Plasma effects. Nuclear bombs are supposed to produce temperatures so high that atoms of air would dissociate into plasma - either single atoms, or even single nuclei of oxygen and nitrogen, with free electrons. As a result there would be (i) Volume changes, (ii) Magnetic effects - there would be some alignment in the earth's magnetic field, like an aurora, (iii) Electrical effects, perhaps radiating from a centre, like those plasma toys, and/or lightning, maybe radial, or round the edges; (iv) the same sort of thing in reverse, as normal conditions returned.

[2] Possibly X-ray effects and other 'electro-magnetic pulses'.

[3] Blast effects, much larger than with explosives. Again, these need some imagination to visualise: in the same way that a diver hitting water at high speed feels it as a wall, maybe air would become so compressed it would sweep outwards like a solid. These effects should include static electricity: when clouds and water drops move against an uprush of air, there's an accumulation of electrons, similar to what happens when glass is rubbed by silk, or in a van der Graaf generator. A huge expanding air blast should produce static charges.